I think the soccer comparison is an important one, but I disagree with a few of your points. For one thing, we’re NOT terrible at the international level. We’ve become a fixture at the World Cup. This is partly due to qualifying from the 4th best of 6 qualifying regions, to be sure, but until 1990 we couldn’t even qualify at all. Now we’re the top team in the region, challenged only by Mexico. Our national team reached the quarterfinals of the 2002 World Cup, and has been ranked in the top 5. Of course that ranking was bogus, but the United States is consistently among the decent teams…certainly not among the elite, but still better than most. As for the MLS, it too does not rank among the elite, but it’s hardly a joke. It’s possibly as high as the 10th best league in the world. And it is growing, stable, and economically viable, which is a greater achievement.

And look at what soccer has come from. The NCAA only started recognizing the sport in the late 60s, and it was fairly obscure at that point. It’s definitely a big kids’ (and HS) game now, but it hasn’t always been like that by any means. Soccer people sometimes insufferably talk about how it’s going to take over “any day now”, but it’s not been like that. I don’t think it will ever be dominant, but it’s growth continues to be glacial…both in the sense of being slow and in the sense of being inexorable.

I see rugby as having the possibility of following a similar path. And we’re about 40 years behind. I think that modern communication and the accelerating of trends might reduce that lag. The similarity of rugby to football might also move things along. On the other hand, it could hamper it; soccer had the advantage of offering something more unique.

I certainly agree that the growth we’ve seen lately is not nearly enough to make the US anything more than it already is in rugby. But today, we are just leaving the ground floor; I see no reason to believe that we are approaching our limit.

The west coast seems to embrace rugby more than the east coast where a majority of our population is. I don’t know how many there are in NY, but it can’t be many. I live in Long Island where there are about 3 million people on this little island. There are less than 10 youth rugby programs.

My point specifically was that rugby will never become a staple in high schools like football or basketball. I agree that youth rugby has grown over the years, but not nearly enough as it needs to grow for the US to become a recognizable force in international competition.

In Southern California, there are presently 32 youth rugby organizations (some are affiliated with senior clubs, others are not). Each club has teams playing at multiple levels (U-6,8, and 10 non-contact, U-12,14, & 16 Boys, U-14 Girls, and HS Boys and HS Girls). Only one club has entered a team at all levels, but each club is represented by, on average, about 6 teams.

Granted, 32 such organizations in an area of nearly 21 million people isn’t much, but in a historical context, it’s huge. When I was growing up, there was no youth rugby in the area. None. All of these organizations are less than 10 years old, and most of them far younger than that. Youth development is a major priority of the SCRFU, and it is growing amazingly quickly. And it’s not just in Southern California either.

So, while rugby remains a drop in the bucket compared to other sports, I think that it is awfully pessimistic to say that it will remain that way, especially when looking at how much less there was so recently.

In repsonse to your next question, America is still not playing rugby at the school level and never will. I was not able to start playing rugby until college and even there I would hardly say I was coached. There are VERY few opportunities to play rugby here before college. And if there is an opportunity, the program is minimal. I currently play on a men’s club and it’s near impossible to get people to play. We have a union that is unorganized at best and the playing facilities are dispicable.

The US will NEVER reach a respsectable position in the world in terms of rugby because one, we play too many sports here to have room for another, two, rugby is viewed as a hooligan sport full of drunks and miscreants and three, because the US seems to not want to be a part of the world. When South Africa won the WC, there was a tiny paragraph in the sports section of our newspaper about it. No one cares about rugby here and no one ever will. Not with baseball, football, basketball, etc. It’s already nera impossible to watch rugby here.

We have great athletes here, money and resources to be very good. We just need to develop rugby in grade schools and more in college. Eventhough my college had a team, we were not recognized as a varsity sport, we were just a club. We were given $5,000 a year to cover traveling, fees and equipment. The school didn’t care if we existed at all. It’s pretty sad because I love rugby and I want my son to play. But I’m afraid I may have to teach him myself in my backyard for him to learn. I envy guys like you who have the opportunity to play at a young age and have rugby all over their country.

Players realizing their getting old? Luke McAllister, one of the All Blacks to go to the UK is only 24!!! I’m pretty sure McAllister isn’t “realizing” he’s getting old. Aaron Mauger is only 27 and Howlett 29. I saw all of the All Blacks WC matches. These guys didn’t show any signs of slowing down.

I also find it hard to believe that the “world’s greatest players” play on a team that can’t win a World Cup. They have some phenomenal players on their team, but c’mon, there are alot of great players in other countries.

You’re argument is based on you ASSUMING that these guys won’t make the 2011 squad, we’ll never know now if they will.

By the way, I hate baseball.

Some text was included in the 1920s

A cleaner look in the 50s…

…continued into the 70s

A more modern jersey in the early 80s